====================
The Stated Goal
====================
Firstly, the channel energy ability doesn't completely achieve the stated goal "...to give adventuring groups a ready supply of healing...".
It only achieves that goal for parties with good-aligned clerics and for parties with neutral clerics who chose to channel positive energy. Parties with evil clerics or with neutral clerics who choose to channel negative energy do not benefit from the stated goal of a ready supply of healing.
In addition, neutral clerics in 3.5 could chose to command undead with the intent of using them against enemies. That option is no longer available unless the cleric wants to stay at least 30 feet away from his companions or injure them when trying to take control of undead they are fighting. The only way to avoid this is to take the Selective Channeling Feat, which means spending a feat to get an option that was free in 3.5.
(Attempts to control undead also heal the undead -- even those the cleric fails to command -- which further limits the desirability of clerics trying to control undead attacking their party.)
Channeling energy weakens the ability of neutral and evil clerics to provide healing and buffs to allies, as they have to stay at least 30 feet away from their allies when trying to command undead, or when trying to channel to harm opponents. This becomes more problematic if they are wearing armor that limits them to a 20-foot movement rate.
This may mean that those parties will suffer from a less ready supply of healing, as their clerics will be out of range, and less able to aid their allies.
====================
Power Level
====================
Secondly, channel energy is too powerful. Clerics don't get area-of-effect cure or inflict spells until ninth level, but now they get those effects at first level -- and they don't have to use a spell slot for them.
The channel energy effect also heals more hit points on average than mass cure light wounds or mass cure moderate wounds. Even the traditional one-target, touch-based cure and inflict spells aren't that impressive outside of battle when compared to the channel energy ability.
Inside of battle, the fact that channeling energy doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity will likely prove another way that the channel ability beats the mass cure spells. It may lack the range of those spells, but that range matters less when you can cure while within reach of powerful undead (or creatures with long reach) without fear of injury or losing the spell.
From a compatibility perspective, channeling energy brings area-of-effect cure magic into the hands of characters at an earlier level, while the 3.5 game design and existing adventures likely assume the characters do not possess such effects.
By comparison, wizards don't get area of effect damage spells until fifth level. While playtesting would probably show that players like having even a 1d6 fireball at first level, I don't imagine many people suggesting that it should be a first-level spell.
====================
Thematic Consistency
====================
Third, there is a thematic problem when the feats for harming elementals and outsiders are taken into account. Suddenly the idea that you are channeling positive and negative energy is gone. It has been exchanged for the generic "divine energy" that harms a specific creature type. Unlike the base positive or negative channeling, the feats are also not linked to alignment in any way. Nor, for that matter, can you command the elementals or outsiders; you can only harm them.
The vagueness of the energy type, the sudden irrelevance of one's alignment, and the absence of the option to command is inconsistent. Why be so specific, and have multiple options for one creature (undead) and then be so vague and limited for the rest?
(I suspect the answer is that people expect those options for undead in D&D, but not for other creature types, but I think this is something that needs to be consistent.)
====================
Summary
====================
1) The channel ability only achieves its goals for good-inclined parties.
2) The ability limits the option of neutral and evil clerics to command undead without also risking injury to the party.
3) It is too powerful relative to other powers for the same class.
4) The game's design assumes area-of-effect cure spells will not be available until later levels.
5) The power is thematically inconsistent in the rules.
====================
Suggestions
====================
Separate turning from the availability of additional party healing.
Give clerics additional healing that is suitable for their level (i.e., no mass healing until higher levels) and that is not superior to the cure spells (so that the existing cure and inflict spells don't become a completely ignored option in spell selection).
Get rid of the positive/negative energy connotations for turning/rebuking in the flavor text so that turning outsiders and elementals makes thematic sense. Saying you "channel your god's divine will and power" is clear enough. The energy doesn't need a type.
In addition, why limit turning outsiders and elementals to a feat? Why not let the player choose the undead, an outsider type, or an elemental type at character creation and also make all of them available as additional options through feats. That way a PC in a game that will be heavy on outsiders can just pick evil outsiders at character creation instead of as a feat, but the standard of turning undead is still available later if the player should want it.
I have to agree having played in games with neutral and evil clerics before many of the things mentioned above would have been a major problem.
Ugh, can't believe I posted in the wrong thread... Erik, I'm with you on this one...
Okay, so.
My group is currently running RotRL. We began before the PF alpha release but opted to convert and playtest the new system. As far as the cleric channeling, I do not like it. Our party cleric is a frail cleric of pharasma and as he channeled negative energy before the switch, the player opted to keep this ability. The result is that the cleric channeling ability is nearly useless; scratch that, not near.
As a 5th level cleric, he now does 3d6 damage in a 30 foot radius if he channels. For a melee cleric, this might be nice. Run ahead, get into the fray by yourself, channel, bring up the backups to clean up the rest. As it is, the cleric cannot affect undead without hurting the lot of us. Rather badly, if the roll goes poorly. So, fine our cleric is useless against undead.
Now let us consider evil clerics we might face in the future. The battle goes badly? All your troops are down and you're 7th level? Start dropping a channel for 3 rounds in a row. That's 12d6 for a party to try to take and or recover from. You essentially cannot chase an evil cleric unless you've enough hp's to avoid being massacred or an excellent will save, every time (let's say a 14 for this 7th level guy). Keep the rogue, ranger, fighter, barbarian and paladin away while we chase...
The feel of the mechanic seems right, but in practice, every cleric that channels negative energy is now essentially a bomb.
Is the burst a sphere as per default in the SRD or are we going with a conical burst?
I'd like to check in on this thread in the future, so please don't mention anyone from RotRL and ruin my fun...
Thanks for reading.
Now let us consider evil clerics we might face in the future. The battle goes badly? All your troops are down and you're 7th level? Start dropping a channel for 3 rounds in a row. That's 12d6 for a party to try to take and or recover from. You essentially cannot chase an evil cleric unless you've enough hp's to avoid being massacred or an excellent will save, every time (let's say a 14 for this 7th level guy). Keep the rogue, ranger, fighter, barbarian and paladin away while we chase...
The feel of the mechanic seems right, but in practice, every cleric that channels negative energy is now essentially a bomb.
I will say one thing, that the evil necromancer with undead minions is going to be an absolute nightmare for alot of parties now! Heal my minons? Hurt the goody two shoe adventurers? Wooo!
Worse, imagine a party of 4-5 clerics around 10th level.... Take the extra turn ability and heal 6d6 in waves..... bring out yer dead!!! Wheres that draco lich at? Add in Quicken turning for more healing madness.
I understand the reasoning behind the change of the turn undead mechanic, but thats one thing about the new PF system that I see large problems with.
This has come up alot lately with my group
Some people in our group have a hard time with allowing clerics mass heal spells at low levels when they ussually dont get them till 9th
I personally like the old turning rules
Maybe the Cleric should get some type of healing surge like a lay hands abilty that as it progresses can start effecting multiple characters
|
I and my players are torn on this ability. Mechanically it's solid, if a little overpowered. But thematically it jumps the shark, right into 4th Ed's front yard.
It works fine in our playtests, but it just doesn't feel right.
It really sucks all the drama out of a classic horror scene, "Quickly, the crucifix! The damned cannot look upon the visage of our Lord", and turns it into some sort of holy healing hand grenade. It's especially silly when you imagine how it looks between encounters, "Step into my ball of faith. Wom-wom-wom". Removing touch as the key component of healing lessens the gravitas and scoots it into the realm of tactical overcompensation, "Ok, 60 feet between each cleric in a grid. Build my army around that."
It's a fun mechanic when you're just goofing around with combat (and playtesting only combat). But when you're telling a story, it's odd.
|
|
It really sucks all the drama out of a classic horror scene, "Quickly, the crucifix! The damned cannot look upon the visage of our Lord", and turns it into some sort of holy healing hand grenade.Really, this has always been true. Clerics have always made undead useless unless they are overpoweringly powerful. Ravenloft had to gimp turns pretty hard (really hard) in order to keep the undead scary.
This version actually gives undead more fear factor, and allows undead with as many (or fewer) hit dice as the PCs to have some amount of oomph against the party without relying on +6 or greater turn resistance.
Hmm. Perhaps I'm secretly a fan of Ravenloft's turning considerations. Undead really should be scary.
Isn't F. Wesley Schneiderblestein a closet Ravenloft fan too? Perhaps he could unduly influence Mr. Buhlman?
while i do like the Channeling positive energy in theory, since it removes only being able to turn once an encounter, and has the side effect of potentially healing your enemies. ATM im running through a game holding both a Cleric and a Paladin, and it feels that in order to really be a nasty challenge with all the healing is to throw more combat at the group more often.
that and the cleric was going to focus on being an undead turning/killing machine, so he was a bit letdown seeing that the feat tree he was looking is kinda meh after 'extra turning'.
Yesterday, we tested the undead turning rules - I think that turning undead and healing the whole party at the same time is too much. I happen to have a Pelor cleric with the extra turning feat, for a total of 8 attempts per day, at 7th level (24d6 total turning damage/healing, on top of regular healing spells.) For story reasons, I have four 6th level Paladin NPCs with them at the moment, making it even worse, but that is another point.
While I do think that turning damage is a good idea basically, as the 3.5 turn mechanic was a bit unwieldy, and turn damage makes it easier, turning and healing at the same time is too much. Perhaps have a cleric opt for either turning or healing with his channeled energy would do the trick. Or have every undead thake the full damage rolled, and the healing only once the number rolled, to be spread among the crowd, making the healing more a side effect. I think I will personally go for the choice - either turning or healing, not both at once. This makes undead interesting as enemies again, as this necessitates some ressource management on the players part.
For evil clerics, I don´t know yet. They will come into play at next weeks session. But as my PCs will face off against three priests (level 3,6, and 8 respectively), I can see them in a world of hurt. Perhaps have them choose to either heal the undead, harm the living, or boost allied undead (giving them temporary hp for each channeling). I have no problem with evil priests channeling harmful energy basically, but it might prove too much.
Stefan
What´s more, what about desecrate? How does this affect this version of turning undead? Normally, it lowers the turning roll by a certain amount. And now? Lowering the damage? On what basis? point-for-point? That might be too weak in comparison.
Stefan
Yesterday, we tested the undead turning rules - I think that turning undead and healing the whole party at the same time is too much. I happen to have a Pelor cleric with the extra turning feat, for a total of 8 attempts per day, at 7th level (24d6 total turning damage/healing, on top of regular healing spells.) For story reasons, I have four 6th level Paladin NPCs with them at the moment, making it even worse, but that is another point.First of all, having a 7th level party with four 6th level retainers is its own problem, regardless of their class. Even an NPC class gives them a lot of support and backup.
Yup. OTOH, in this situation it is basically ok, as they are facing a lot of deadly combat - I fully expect that these paladins (they are actually level 5, I was mistaken, but that is a minor point) will die in the combats the PCs are facing (the next being a Hextorian temple with three priests, some cultists, some undead, and four or more archers, with no enemy below CR 4 or 5 individually.)
Also, indescriminate use of Channel in combat is a deadly mistake unless you have Selective Channel. If you have a problem with the idea that you'll need more combats per day to challenge the PCs, then you're butting heads with the large number of people who want to be able to throw more combats per day at the PCs.
I´m not sure I´m getting your point here. My PC used channeling while they were battling undead, with the side effect of quite some healing, and then having quite some more channeling left.
Being able to do more combats per day can wreak havoc to the balance, especially considering that the new PRPGs main design goal is to be backwards compatible. If my party suddenly has 24d6 more healing available than before, without much drawback, this makes quite some difference. Even with just the regular number of turn attempts (say, four or five for the average cleric), this is quite some healing power. While the goal to make more healing available is a good idea, I think this is too much. It is fine at low level, but at higher levels, it gets out of hand.Stefan
What if there was a feat chain that allowed you to heal?
Maybe like
Healing Surge
Prereq 3 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Positive Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it heals all living creatures equal to half the dice the cleric does in damage.
Greater Healing Surge
Prereq 8 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Positive Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it heals all living creatures equal to the dice the cleric does in damage
And maybe for the Evil Clerics
Damaging Surge
Prereq 3 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Negative Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it damages all living creatures equal to half the dice the cleric does in damage
Greater Healing Surge
Prereq 8 ranks Knowledge Religion, Ability to Channel Negative Energy
When the character uses Channel energy it damages all living creatures equal to the dice the cleric does in damage
What do you guys thinks, one of my players came up with this idea and i really like it so i might house rule this any how
My group was so sick of the 15 minute work day that we adopted the Recharge Magic system from UA a couple of years ago. It was nice for a while, but eventually I decided that it was to far in the opposite extreme. There was no attrition. The "15 minute work day" has become "conquer the entire dungeon in an hour".
So along comes PF with a suitable compromise. Of what little playtesting there has been (not enough for a report unfortunately), the new cleric is refreshing. We don't normally have evil clerics. But of the couple we've had in the past, healing just wasn't their forte. It took an evil cleric and his fellow bard to keep every one in the HP's.
It seems to me that the PF evil cleric would have an easier time healing. Now they can fill there spell slots up with curing spells and reek unholy havoc with their turning ability. Get some selective channeling and bam. PF has also increased the number of feats granted to classes so the fact that clerics have to get a feat to have more precise control over their positive/negative energy bursts seems balanced to me.
The elemental/outsider aspect doesn't bother me. The idea of clerics being able to damage demons and devils seems to follow the theme just fine. While considering the fact that elementals are inner planer creatures seems a bit of a stretch for most clerics, it fits for those that are elemental domain based.
I look forward to more development in this area. So far so good.
<note: I originally posted this in the Skill and Feats section as it is Selective Channeling that lets this combo work. I repost here as it is also connected to the discussion of Channel Energy>
Mostly I am looking at Negative Energy pg 60
Particularly when combined with Selective Channeling pg 51 and to some degree Extra Turning pg 50.
This is a real combo bomb here; especially at low levels.
Negative Energy does 1d6 damage to all living creatures in 30' radius with DC 10 +1/2 lvl +Cha bonus.
Clerical Turns per day are 3+Cha bonus.
Take a Cha 16 cleric that takes the feat Selective Channeling.
The cleric can AoE in a 30' radius doing 1d6 for half against Will Save of DC 13 up to 6 times in a row or spread over that many attacks. That is good damage and awesome blasting for a level 1 cleric without even touching their spell list.
I can not tell you how the wizards and sorcerers would be jealous of that kind of ability. You do not even need to be evil but a neutral faith will still allow you the damage (though many clerics might want to turn evil for damage out put like this).
The damage effect also scales and can be made to affect Outsiders and Elementals thanks to Turn Elemental and Turn Outsider on pg 52.
By level 10, the Cleric that increased their Cha to 18 and took the Extra Turning feat once (though this is likely a feat that could be taken multiple times with each selection adding another 2 usages).
The 10th level Cleric now can AoE in a 30' doing 1d6+4d6= 5d6 damage with Will save DC 10+5+4= 19 for a total of 3+4+2= 9 times per day and could be affecing Elementals or Outsiders beside Living targets.
You might argue that Fireball can do more damage by 10th level but this is pretty free spell choices for damage, the AoE at 30' radius is larger then most Fireballs and then their is Selective Channeling.
Selective Channeling is the real game breaker. Taking this feat means that you do not blast your friends with all this damage that the cleric is doing without even opening their prayer book.
You automatically get the ability to exclude your own self from the negative damage as part of Negative Channeling. Selective Channeling lets you protect up to your Cha bonus in other targets. Given the very average 16 Cha Cleric then this gives three people (usually enough to exclude any of the other members within 30' of the Cleric).
A Cleric dedicated to this combo would start with a higher Cha and a race like Gnome which is +2 on Cha and thus possibly a Cha 20 starting race at level 1.
A Cleric of this type would focus almost strictly on being able to spam this power while using their spells to protect them as they just walked around killing things with their field of death.
Worst case situation by level 20 using a Gnome base with 18 Cha before racial modifer and taking multiple Extra Turnings.
Cha would be 25 with bonus +7. Feats would be Selective Turning, Turn Elementals, Turn Outsiders, Extra Turning x7 (+14 bonus turnings per day).
The Cleric can now AoE for 30' radius doing 1d6+9d6= 10d6 damage with Will Save for half of 10+10+7= 27 for a total of 3+7+14= 24 times per day affecting both Elementals and Outsiders (also any undead are just extra recruits for the front line for this character).
They really do not need their spell list as they have plenty of combat power already and just spam channelings all the time.
@ Smerg
Several issues:
- Extra Turning cannot be taking more than once in PRPG.
- Using up that number of feats and focussing on a non-casting attribute as a primary caster, you'd better get something worthy out of it.
- 10d6 with a save for half damage at level 20... come on. The fighter's doing more than that with a single blow, and with Great Cleave, he even has limited AoE-capabilities.
- Casters are strong against many weak creatures due to AoE. That's nothing new. The 20th level cleric could do 20d6 damage with Firestorm without spending a single feat on that and on an even greater area.
- Healing > damage. Most abilities to heal are weaker in numbers or more limited than those that deal damage (compare a morning star and cure light wounds at first level). Thus, if you have the choise between taking a healing or a damaging ability with the same numeric values, healing will be the better choice. With channeling, there's even a save of medium DC - so the healing is even greater in numeric value.
Imagine if the fighter could take a feat to heal with each blow instead of doing damage. Who wouldn't take that?
- Diversity and specialization. It's better to have a well balanced group filling several roles than pimping each character's way of dealing damage. The cleric's role includes healing; Wizards, Rogues, Fighters have better ways of dealing damage. Pimp a cleric's healing output instead of a mediocre AoE-attack, and you'll have a much stronger group.
- The attack wouldn't hurt undead or constructs. Healing, however, heals all your party members all the time.
- Without Selective Channeling, channeling negative energy would a really terrible ability. It would be practically unusable for anybody but stereotypical undead overlords.
Even in its current form, it's of dubious use, as you need a Charisma of at least 16 to protect the typical adventuring group from the effect, and that binds a lot of attribute points to a non-primary attribute. Putting these points into strength to carry your heavy armor, and using a morning star to bash people's heads in might be superior to boosting a rather weak attribute.
I wondered on the multiple selection of the Extra Turning Feat because it was a backward capacity issue that previously Extra Turning Feat allowed you to take it more than once (each is only adding an extra two channelings).
With that limitation of a single selection it changes the worst case from 24 times a day to 12 times a day (still plenty of uses in an average day) and gives the character back 6 feats to do with whatever they want.
-----------------------------
You are right that channeling does not affect constructs and undead causing damage.
Not much can be done against constructs but Undead are just extra recruits. Instead of killing undead, you get to recruit them for usage in future battles where your spamming of negative energy means that they are a regenerative wall of bodies for the negative channeling cleric.
Another thing with negative channelling is that you are doing full damage or half damage to each target without having to deal with spell resistance (supernatural ability and supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance). This makes the constance channelling often superior to the ability to cast a more powerful spell in the end game.
Further, this is extra bonus damage that means that the cleric is not having to bother with spell slots on many if any offense spells
-----------------------------------
More to the point, I may not have made clear how broken this path of the damaging turning happens to be when you include the Clerical Domains and their level 8 powers.
Let's take a tour through some of the level 8 Domain powers and look for some fun synergies.
Death Domain
Call Undead - Get your level of undead in skeletons and zombies. Not too impressive but with the constant spam of negative channeling they are almost always going to be alive (just make sure to select some bigger size ones as time goes along). It might also be good to invest in some heavy armour and shields to complete the 'meat shield'. This is basically an 'army of one' approach.
Destruction Domain
Aura of Destruction - Get to add 1/2 your level in damage to every attack that occurs. This is roughly equivelent to one extra level of damage at level 8 on every target, every round. Not bad as it does help kill things quicker and there is a risk of you and your allies being hurt more.
Earth Domain
Body of Stone - 5/admantium is nice but 5 points against something that does 50 is really a sneeze in terms of protection.
Liberation Domain
Freedom's Call - Now here we get the good stuff. Allies within the area are not affected by confused, grappled, frightened, paniced, paralyzed, pinned, or shaken conditions (many of the things that cause casters problems). A good defense that can be spread though out the day to keep you fit when casting your channeling.
Madness Domain
Aura of Madness - Another good choice. This gives a second check against a Supernatural ability (no spell resistance againt) that can leave targets confused. Two chances in a round to leave a target both confused (unable to fight back) and fully damaged.
Repose Domain
Ward Against Death - Another good defense choice. Immune to Death Effects, Energy Drain, and effects that cause Negative levels.
Luck Domain
Luck Aura - A mixture of offense and defense. All rolls are +2 on d20 and automatically overcome concealment (very nice for you and your allies)
There are other Domains that might be good like Trickery Domain with the ability to cast the equivelent of Veil but that will not really help in battle too much (though the image of a Beholder or Lich would be very believable with the damage to everyone going on around the cleric and a good second choice with Lamashtu who also gives the madness domain).
Of the choices, I would have to put Madness near the top of the list. You still don't get any advantage against undead with this but undead are creatures that you recruit instead of kill anyways.
Constructs are the only resistance then but they were a resistance to the spamming of the channel energy which means that you need to prepare a few spells of choice to be ready for them anyways (at least until a Turn Construct Feat or similar ability is created).
Domain access being related to deity choice will have some effect but not too much for the creative player.
Again, this is all 'free' stuff without the cleric dipping into their spell lists. Everything that a cleric is doing without using their spell lists is just extra gravy.
Many Domain abilities appear to require an action to activate, which IMO lessens their impact somewhat.
---
With the rebuking/controlling... *feels his button being pressed* I don't know, but I very much prefer the 5 Shadows my current 11th level cleric (with Phylactery of Rebuking) controls to any number of skeletons/zombies, even if I could heal them occasionally.
The cleric's ability to control undead is much, much weaker in PRPG compared to D&D3.5, as intelligent undead get saves every day (and after each turning attempt). This makes especially the nasty ones very, very dangerous to keep around. Keeping a group of Shadows is not only suicidal, but a danger to all around you, as an escaped Shadow is almost impossible to find/kill and can exterminate whole villages single-handedly, creating spawns in the process. So, keeping Shadows or other incorporeal/intelligent undead is a seriously unwise tactic in PRPG.
Anyone who says that the new turning abilities are overpowered is very, very wrong on a fundamental level.
Anyone who says that the new turning abilities are overpowered is very, very wrong on a fundamental level.
It gives to much healing, is my only problem
It gives to much healing, is my only problem
10d6...at level 20. An average of 35 damage healed...at level 20.
That's not too much. At all. CLW wands cost less than 1,000 gp and cover 50d8+50 points of damage.
It gives to much healing, is my only problem10d6...at level 20. An average of 35 damage healed...at level 20.
That's not too much. At all. CLW wands cost less than 1,000 gp and cover 50d8+50 points of damage.
If you're going to compare the total charges of a clw wand to turning than you have to compare it to the total number of turns*10d6.
And a CLW can only cure 1d8+5 in one round while Turn cures 10d6 to everyone in a radius so potentially one turn can cure more damage than the entire wand.
It gives to much healing, is my only problem10d6...at level 20. An average of 35 damage healed...at level 20.
That's not too much. At all. CLW wands cost less than 1,000 gp and cover 50d8+50 points of damage.
but to do that means affecting only one target, and takes five minutes of game time to burn out the wand. whereas with the turning attempt, you can heal better than through use of the mass cure spells, which dont become available until level 9 (?) and themselves cap at 1d8+25. a little unbalancing.
As an in-combat heal, turning is viable, but weak at level 20. 35 damage is nothing compared to what (mass) heal can do.
As an in-combat heal, turning is viable, but weak at level 20. 35 damage is nothing compared to what (mass) heal can do.
Yes, but you are comparing a power you get at 17thlvl (9th level spells) to a 1st Level Power (turning)... of course Mass heal should be significantly better than the healing you get fron Turning.
The healing from Turning in my opinion helps balance the slight reduction in Cleric power from the switch in Domains (The 3.5 Domain powers plus spells in many cases- but not for all Domains- are better than the Domain powers in Alpha2).
All in all, I like the Alpha2 cleric as is including the healing.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Question. This in mostly a flavor issue.
If a vampire level-drains your rogue, the character rises as a vampire spawn.
If a vampire cleric were to kill your rogue with a harming blast of negative energy, should the character rise as a vampire spawn?
If not, why not? (Both level drain and the harming blast are manifestations of the same thing, right?)
If so, what if a living cleric killed your rogue with a harming blast of negtive energy?
If you're going to compare the total charges of a clw wand to turning than you have to compare it to the total number of turns*10d6.
And a CLW can only cure 1d8+5 in one round while Turn cures 10d6 to everyone in a radius so potentially one turn can cure more damage than the entire wand.
That's true, but I wouldn't want to Turn in combat anyway.
If so, what if a living cleric killed your rogue with a harming blast of negtive energy?
The same thing that happens if you get hit by an inflict spell.
I agree with Pneumonica. Just a sidenote:
Also, if you want to look at the history of D&D, energy drain spells have traditionally produced ghouls, not vampires. In 3.0 and 3.5, they removed these features, and they only reappear as occasional issues as special setting rules (like in Ravenloft).
In AD&D 2nd, Energy Drain and Finger of Death produced Juju-Zombies.
In D&D3.5, the "default undead" is a Wight:
A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.
Note however, that only the "Create Spawn" ability gives control over the creature, so you can create Wights with (e. g.) Enervation, but cannot control them without some other spell/ability.
Channel Energy already exists in 3.5, or at least something very similar.
Complete Divine, p84, Sacred Healing Feat:
You can spend a turn attempt as a full-round action to grant fast healing 3 to all living creatures within a 60-ft burst. The fast healing lasts for a number of founds equal to 1+your Char modifier (minimum 1 round).
If you have a charismatic cleric, Cha 18, then he provides fast healing 3 for 5 rounds, equal to 5d6 healing. This is available from 1st level.
If you take that into consideration, then channel energy isn't that far off from what is available in 3.5.
The biggest change here is that they changed Turning to affect all living creatures now.
Before:
Turning was used to either attack undead, or bolster/control undead.
Now:
Turning is used for undead yes, but OMG HEALING or OMG DAMAGE.
You don't need any extra feats to damage EVERYTHING OTHER THAN UNDEAD with negative energy turning. Negative energy heals undead. Picking up the feats for your Turning to affect Outsiders and Elementals like undead, you'd heal them with your negative energy turn effects.
This drastically changes the focus of the ability. It's far, far and beyond more useful as a general healing effect, or a general damaging effect, than it is a "screw up undead" effect.
One "fix" I liked hearing was to change the Energy protection spells to include Positive and Negative as standard choices for protection, so a cleric (or even wizard, thinking necromancer spec'd here) could protect his undead from being nuked.
But this doesn't help the fact that "Turning" has really become "Heal or Hurt". I'd go so far as to say that you could take out the spontaneous Cure/Inflict from a cleric and replace it with the current full out channeling healing or damage, as it's emulating the same effect. *shrug* Although I don't know if it's ultimately required...
Maybe limiting the Extra Turning feat. They knew Turning was beefed up and reduced it from 3 to 2 extra turns. Maybe make it so any additional selections of the feat only add 1 more. If you really want to limit it, you can not allow the feat to be chosen more than once.
Maybe limiting the Extra Turning feat. [...] If you really want to limit it, you can not allow the feat to be chosen more than once.
I think that's already the case. It doesn't say in the feat description that you can take the feat multiple times, so the default rule (it not being allowed) should be applied.
This is something I'm starting to see a bit of in Alpha 2. The wording doesn't clearly close off these kinds of avenues, so playtests become tainted because they are "playing it the unintended way". If allowed in the final product, there will be disputes on rulings between DMs and Players, etc.
Rogue combat feats, Extra Turning feat.. These things need clarified rulings that say "only once" for sure, since that is specifically different from the standard rules they are based on (at least for the Rogue entry).
I know it might be simply restating rules inside the entry, but it would go a long way towards minimizing misinterpretations.